Kevin's Watch

Vraith wrote:

Exnihilo2 wrote:Z, what free choice did the elderly have, other than not to die before they needed care, that is?

Not relevant. The point is that WE, at sometimes very high cost, are somehow bound by a religious morality to care for the suffering/elderly, while God at no cost to itself, and the source of that morality, is not only not responsible for the care of them, but the actual source of their condition.

Exactly. (I say that a lot after your posts. ). I'm not saying we shouldn't help those in need. I'm saying that people find it immoral for humans to refrain from helping, but it's the most benevolent thing possible for a god to refrain from protecting us from the consequences of our free choices (well, until we die--then god apparently doesn't give a damn about freewill anymore).

The elderly made just as many free choices as any other person who reaches that stage. Are you (Ex2) saying the elderly don't have freewill? Sure, they didn't choose to get old or sick, but children don't choose to get raped. And yet allowing the children to get raped (when god could clearly stop it) seems to be necessary to the idea of a benevolent god, but for us to allow old people to suffer isn't necessary to the idea of benevolent humans--in fact, it flaty contradicts it. Indeed, allowing children to get raped isn't necessary to the idea of benevolent humans, either (again, contradicts it). Our entire sense of justice is based on holding ourselves to a higher standard than we hold our god. If god couldn't be bothered to intervene, why should we? If it's *virtuous* for god to allow evil acts (because freewill is necessary), why do we even bother getting in the way of his intentions by trying to stop or punish them? Aren't we second-guessing god by doing this? Aren't we putting ourselves in the role of Judge, which is supposed to be reserved for Him?

Which goes back to my point that the reason we think of God as infinite is because otherwise he wouldn't be able to hold up to all the contradictory ways we conceive Him. If he were less than infinite, we could judge him just as strongly as we judge each other.

Exnihilo2 wrote:

Vraith wrote:

Exnihilo2 wrote:Z, what free choice did the elderly have, other than not to die before they needed care, that is?

Not relevant. The point is that WE, at sometimes very high cost, are somehow bound by a religious morality to care for the suffering/elderly, while God at no cost to itself, and the source of that morality, is not only not responsible for the care of them, but the actual source of their condition.

What if morality needs no divine source or absolute truth to back it up?

I actually agree that morality doesn't need those. However, in terms of this discussion, the lack of such a basis removes at least one of the "Omnis" as an attribute of and godhead.

Vraith wrote:

Exnihilo2 wrote:

Vraith wrote: Not relevant. The point is that WE, at sometimes very high cost, are somehow bound by a religious morality to care for the suffering/elderly, while God at no cost to itself, and the source of that morality, is not only not responsible for the care of them, but the actual source of their condition.

What if morality needs no divine source or absolute truth to back it up?

I actually agree that morality doesn't need those. However, in terms of this discussion, the lack of such a basis removes at least one of the "Omnis" as an attribute of and godhead.

Namely omnipotence... after all, if you can't control morality, you're not all powerful.

Zarathustra wrote:If it's *virtuous* for god to allow evil acts (because freewill is necessary), why do we even bother getting in the way of his intentions by trying to stop or punish them?

... or, it's virtuous for God to allow evil acts BECAUSE it leaves us to try to stop or punish them.

God's not working on the same basis of morality as we are. NOT because morality is relative. Because God's role is not our role.

And so, the concept of God "allowing" someone to suffer is just overloaded with unsunstantiatable preconceptions. God made a world in which people suffer. You can't say that God "allows" suffering, any more than you could say that God "can't prevent" suffering, or that God "prefers" suffering ... not until you identify what God's role is. Something we probably can only imagine but never know. Maybe God allows suffering BECAUSE it leaves us to try to stop it or ameliorate it.

Donaldson said it well. We *cant* understand what motivates a god. Never mind God.

And, as we will always fall short in that department, "allows" represents a judgement we aren't qualified to make.

wayfriend wrote:

Zarathustra wrote:If it's *virtuous* for god to allow evil acts (because freewill is necessary), why do we even bother getting in the way of his intentions by trying to stop or punish them?

... or, it's virtuous for God to allow evil acts BECAUSE it leaves us to try to stop or punish them.

God's not working on the same basis of morality as we are. NOT because morality is relative. Because God's role is not our role.

And so, the concept of God "allowing" someone to suffer is just overloaded with unsunstantiatable preconceptions. God made a world in which people suffer. You can't say that God "allows" suffering, any more than you could say that God "can't prevent" suffering, or that God "prefers" suffering ... not until you identify what God's role is. Something we probably can only imagine but never know. Maybe God allows suffering BECAUSE it leaves us to try to stop it or ameliorate it.

Donaldson said it well. We *cant* understand what motivates a god. Never mind God.

And, as we will always fall short in that department, "allows" represents a judgement we aren't qualified to make.

But, if both are true: god exists and we can't understand god's motivations, let alone god:
we have not only have no right, we have no ability to judge anything as good or evil. Well...we can do so, but the judgement will be wholly human, completely isolated/disconnected from true, godly good and evil.

Avatar wrote:

Exnihilo2 wrote:Can an Omni-God be omnibenevolent, since God must have created All, including evil / disobedience to him?

Hassan-i Sabbah wrote:nothing is true, everything is permitted

Perhaps there is no evil and no good.

--A

This.

Good and evil are human constructs, guys. Ascribing so-called moral behavior to the Divine is like portraying God with a flowing white beard. You're just anthromorphizing what *is*.

(Life is *so* much easier for a polytheist. I don't expect any of my deities to be omni-anything. )

wayfriend wrote:
Donaldson said it well. We *cant* understand what motivates a god. Never mind God.

This is mostly my current belief. Us trying to understand/ascribe characteristics to God is like bacterium determining why we do what we do. The two are just on completely different levels.

What I guess I'm trying to get at also with this thread is what ali mentions also: it seems that when religion applies these 'omni-qualities', they aren't trying to describe an Almighty being, but trying to bring down and restrict the Almighty being. We then end up with absurdities like: "God can literally do anything... but it must answer my prayer because it's omniprayeranswering." Or even, "God knows everything (you know, even what events will shape us in what ways) and ultimately sets up the initial conditions knowing full well what the outcome will be... but it's still our fault if we end up in hell. Because omnipotent God can not stand sin." The hell?

You can believe in a cosmic entity that has our best interests at heart and works towards our good... I just don't think you can ascribe an 'omni-anything' to said being.

aliantha wrote:

Avatar wrote:

Exnihilo2 wrote:Can an Omni-God be omnibenevolent, since God must have created All, including evil / disobedience to him?

Hassan-i Sabbah wrote:nothing is true, everything is permitted

Perhaps there is no evil and no good.

--A

This.

Good and evil are human constructs, guys. Ascribing so-called moral behavior to the Divine is like portraying God with a flowing white beard. You're just anthromorphizing what *is*.

(Life is *so* much easier for a polytheist. I don't expect any of my deities to be omni-anything. )

But that's not the starting point of this thread.

aliantha wrote:(Life is *so* much easier for a polytheist. I don't expect any of my deities to be omni-anything. )

Even easier for an atheist, I don't expect any of my deities.

wayfriend wrote:

Zarathustra wrote:If it's *virtuous* for god to allow evil acts (because freewill is necessary), why do we even bother getting in the way of his intentions by trying to stop or punish them?

... or, it's virtuous for God to allow evil acts BECAUSE it leaves us to try to stop or punish them.

God's not working on the same basis of morality as we are. NOT because morality is relative. Because God's role is not our role.

And so, the concept of God "allowing" someone to suffer is just overloaded with unsunstantiatable preconceptions. God made a world in which people suffer. You can't say that God "allows" suffering, any more than you could say that God "can't prevent" suffering, or that God "prefers" suffering ... not until you identify what God's role is. Something we probably can only imagine but never know. Maybe God allows suffering BECAUSE it leaves us to try to stop it or ameliorate it.

Donaldson said it well. We *cant* understand what motivates a god. Never mind God.

And, as we will always fall short in that department, "allows" represents a judgement we aren't qualified to make.

Excellent post, wayfriend. Some are assuming that we can understand the nature of an omnipotent, omniscient creator. I think that's an unsupported belief. Not that I believe in this being anyway. But, for the sake of argument, let's say such a being exists. We can understand what we mean when we say "Count to infinity." But we can't count to infinity. We can't even count to a googol, which is infinitely smaller than infinity. In a similar way, we can understand what omniscience and omnipotence are. But we can't know what it would be like to be those things.

Is it possible for an omniscient being, even though it must surely have access to all knowledge, to not access all knowledge? I can throw a baseball behind me, and never look to see where it went. I could look, but I don't have to. Is it not possible for an omni, omni creator to set things in motion, deny itself the information of how it will all turn out, just for the sake of being surprised? How bored would I be if I knew E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G that would E-V-E-R happen to E-V-E-R-Y particle?? So I could make a universe with a Big Bang, but not pay attention to how many particles I created. And give them leeway to interact in ways that allow for huge changes, but not look ahead to see what those changes WILL be. It would be a delight every instant I existed to look around at the universe, and see how it was all working out.

To respond to Z:

Zarathustra wrote:If it's *virtuous* for god to allow evil acts (because freewill is necessary), why do we even bother getting in the way of his intentions by trying to stop or punish them?

I bother if my morality insists that those acts are evil, and should not be. I don't bother if my morality doesn't have a problem with them. This is true whether or not there is any sort of creator or higher being.

Perhaps the omni God is the symbol of The Self. ('scuze me for getting Jungian on everybody)

Can an Omni-God be bored? That would imply an unfulfilled need. (He could zap himself not-bored.)

Want to add that allowing an evil act, as a God, is not even in the same category as committing an evil act, as a mortal.

As a father, I sometimes "allow" my children to do something that they would be better off not doing. (Presuming I see no serious harm coming from it, of course!) Sometimes experience is the best teacher. It's part of the way a parent can guide.

Another example: we don't punish people for thinking about doing a crime, we punish people for doing it. Therefore, you could say we "allow" a crime to occur, in that we take no action after it has occurred.

Which demonstrates that "allowing" something to happen is not the same moral question as the doing of it. God does not inherit the sins of his children.

Very nice, Fist...A god like that tickles me.
However, if it's like that it leads the same place as my previous post:
If god is incomprehensible, then it is indefensible to base any human judgement whatsoever on any appeal to god...even [maybe especially] on his incomprehensibleness.

EDITED to add, WF:
This is interesting:

As a father, I sometimes "allow" my children to do something that they would be better off not doing. (Presuming I see no serious harm coming from it, of course!)

But...doesn't that mean that God allows evil deeds because "no serious harm coming from it, of course.?"
That seems dark and nasty at first blush...but if it was really true, it might be actually the best attribute of an omni-god, at least in relation to the final outcome for us mere mortals. We die/ascend...and suddenly, "WOW, it really wasn't so bad, was it?"

Glad to have tickled you, Vraith.

wayfriend wrote:Can an Omni-God be bored? That would imply an unfulfilled need.

Again, we can't actually know. We can only talk about how we think we would feel if we were omnipotent and omniscient. Q wanted to die because he was utterly bored after having done EVERYTHING that could be done, and going EVERYWHERE. But then, that's not the same as BEING everything and everywhere. And who can say how either state of being would really feel to the one experiencing it? Who has the unmitigated gall to claim to know how they would feel if they were in any of these situations?

wayfriend wrote:(He could zap himself not-bored.)

I think this is a silly idea. Not exactly sure how to word why. It seems to touch on Lewis' idea that not being able to make a square circle is not proof that God is not omnipotent. It also seems to be self-deceptive. What's the point - heck, the definition - of boredom and excitement if you can just zap it away?

Vraith wrote:But...doesn't that mean that God allows evil deeds because "no serious harm coming from it, of course.?"

Absolutely not! I am only trying, by example, to show that "allowing" and "doing" are two different moral scenarios. You break my analogy if you take it too far.

Fist and Faith wrote:What's the point - heck, the definition - of boredom and excitement if you can just zap it away?

Fist and Faith, maybe your right. But I would tend to believe that boredom occurs because of an insufficiency, and by definition an Omni-God wouldn't suffer from any insufficiency. Perhaps [S]He could choose to be bored, but [S]He would not have to be bored. Certainly, Omni-God wouldn't need to avoid being bored. (And this notion isn't based on knowing how [S]He feels. So I think I am sidestepping having "unmitigated gall".)

Just a Humble O, mind.

If you allow that an Omni-G might feel bored, why not also say that he might feel overworked? Or depressed? We're back to anthromorphizing, I think, when we talk about God being bored.

(Leto Atreides II wasn't an Omni-God. So.)

wayfriend wrote:

Vraith wrote:But...doesn't that mean that God allows evil deeds because "no serious harm coming from it, of course.?"

Absolutely not! I am only trying, by example, to show that "allowing" and "doing" are two different moral scenarios. You break my analogy if you take it too far.

I know, I know...but man, the outcome is so much cooler/better [in an absolute end sense] if it IS taken that far.
Imagine if for everyone, even the victims and perpetrators themselves, on the "next level" it turned out that, however much it hurt and horrified at the time, the various holocausts and genocides and serial killing of innocent men, women and children, really wasn't much more important/damaging/evil than a 6 year old losing a tooth?
[I should note, I don't at all believe that in any way describes a real possibility...but in a "what if" scenario, it's the best of possible outcomes IMHO]

You won't find me saying anything close to that. The argument that it won't matter in the afterlife is an argument used by people wanting to argue away the consequences of their crimes.

wayfriend wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:What's the point - heck, the definition - of boredom and excitement if you can just zap it away?

Fist and Faith, maybe your right. But I would tend to believe that boredom occurs because of an insufficiency, and by definition an Omni-God wouldn't suffer from any insufficiency. Perhaps [S]He could choose to be bored, but [S]He would not have to be bored. Certainly, Omni-God wouldn't need to avoid being bored. (And this notion isn't based on knowing how [S]He feels. So I think I am sidestepping having "unmitigated gall".)

Just a Humble O, mind.

If you allow that an Omni-G might feel bored, why not also say that he might feel overworked? Or depressed? We're back to anthromorphizing, I think, when we talk about God being bored.

(Leto Atreides II wasn't an Omni-God. So.)

I understand what you're saying. And you may be right. But then, you may be wrong. Again, we can't know what it would be like to be omni- omni-.

And the insufficiency idea is where that Lewis thing comes in. If God is bored with all of creation, then he should just make more stuff. Easy, eh? Certainly possible for an omni- omni-. But then he'd instantly know every past, present, and future detail of all that additional stuff, because he's omni- omni-. So, bored again. It's one of Hofstadter's strange loops.

The only way to not be bored is to be surprised.

Maybe. That might just be the only with I, a non-omni- omni-, can figure out how boredom can be avoided.

Boredom is a consequence of the facility of desire. Does God have the facility of desire? Desire implies insufficiency, incompleteness. How can OmniGod therefore be capable of desire? In fact, how can OmniGod be said to have experiences of any kind? Doesn't OmniGod transcend experience, even existence itself?

I don't think we can know whether desire definitely would come with omni- omni-, or definitely would not.

And would no desire be a lacking?